Draining The DC Swamp

…by moving its denizens out into the real country:

here’s my plan: During the next four years, the Trump Administration — and Congress — should plan to move at least 25% of the federal workforce located in the Washington, D.C. metro area to other locations around the country: Places that are economically suffering (which will have the advantage of making federal workers’ salaries go farther) and that need the business. Should Trump get another four years, he should do it all over again.

What’s interesting is that Vox (of all places) has a similar proposal, from Matt Yglesias:

The poorest places in the United States have been poor for a very long time and lack the basic infrastructure of prosperity. But that’s not true in the Midwest, where cities were thriving two generations ago and where an enormous amount of infrastructure is in place. Midwestern states have acclaimed public university systems, airports that are large enough to serve as major hubs, and cities whose cultural legacies include major league pro sports teams, acclaimed museums, symphonies, theaters, and other amenities of big-city living.

But industrial decline has left these cities overbuilt, with shrunken populations that struggle to support the legacy infrastructure, and the infrastructure’s decline tends to only beget further regional decline.

At the same time, America’s major coastal cities are overcrowded. They suffer from endemic housing scarcity, massive traffic congestion, and a profound small-c political conservatism that prevents them from making the kind of regulatory changes that would allow them to build the new housing and infrastructure they need. Excess population that can’t be absorbed by the coasts tends to bounce to the growth-friendly cities of the Sunbelt that need to build anew what Milwaukee, Detroit, and Cleveland already have in terms of infrastructure and amenities.

A sensible approach would be for the federal government to take the lead in rebalancing America’s allocation of population and resources by taking a good hard look at whether so much federal activity needs to be concentrated in Washington, DC, and its suburbs. Moving agencies out of the DC area to the Midwest would obviously cause some short-term disruptions. But in the long run, relocated agencies’ employees would enjoy cheaper houses, shorter commutes, and a higher standard of living, while Midwestern communities would see their population and tax base stabilized and gain new opportunities for complementary industries to grow.

In this context, it’s worth noting that LBJ treated NASA as a sort of “Marshall Plan” for the south, which persisted in its poverty after the Civil War. Only the Cape is really geographically needed; the other centers could have been elsewhere.

Of course, the down side for this proposal (for DC-area residents) would be a plunge in housing prices.

7 thoughts on “Draining The DC Swamp”

  1. Crazy talk, all of it. Don’t you see you’ll be turning red states blue?!?

    I’m sure for Yglesias that’s a feature, not a bug.

    Better to lay these people off instead of changing red-state demographics with them.

    1. And it will make it that much harder to close an agency or cancel a program when every state has a stake in the free money.

  2. Here Bob! Now you can try to tell us how federal spending is an issue to be explored.

    Personally, I see Glenn Reynolds suggestion as a move towards equality among the states in receiving the same federal spending per capita. Like other such efforts, I’m not sure it is wise, but I understand the argument. I think the better argument is to make federal expenditures so insignificant as to not be an issue to discuss. It will take a long time to get there, but we can start with ending things like Obamacare and Department of Education. TSA too.

  3. I’ve heard (possibly apocryphal?) that, had JFK not been shot, what we know as Johnson Space Center would have been headquartered at Kendall Square in Cambridge.

    “Boston, we have a problem…”

Comments are closed.